Which lens shoudl i get?

James07

James07

James07

Soldato
Joined
6 Dec 2006
Posts
5,914
Location
West Yorkshire
Ive had my camera now a few months and im finding my 18-55mm lens way too restricting at times.

Im looking at either the 55-200 or the 70-300. theres quite a difference in price so, im wondering weather its worth the extra money or not?

When abroad i was taking pictures of the wildlife by the sea and was struggling to get any decent close ups (check my egypt thread) and i went to watch amateur rugby this weekend and again i struggled once the play was on the other side of the pitch..

What should i do?

Nikon D40x
 
I have a 55-200 alongside my 18-55. It's a good lens, the photos look good unless it's getting dark, then the aperture somewhat let's it down and it can sometimes struggle to af then. It's also really small so would sit nicely on the d40. They can be had for £85 from mpb, great at that price!

I'm looking to upgrade now I have the d7000, but I'm not sure the 70-300 offers enough over the 55-200 to warrant that stop and not going straight to a pro level tele.
 
The 55-200 is aerie fly good lens, but the 70-300 is a little sharper and 300mm vs 200mm makes a noticible difference. 200mm is really the limit for usable wildlife lens on a crop camera, for larger friendlier animals it works bu it won't work well for birds or more skittish animals. 300mm works much, I tend to find that at 300mm I was wishing I just had that little bit more reach, but at 200mm I just feel that I would have to crop too much to get a good photo.

Also consider the tamron 70-300VC, make sure it is the VC version, should be much cheaper than the Nikon version.
 
bcjames said:
I have a 55-200 alongside my 18-55. It's a good lens, the photos look good unless it's getting dark, then the aperture somewhat let's it down and it can sometimes struggle to af then. It's also really small so would sit nicely on the d40. They can be had for £85 from mpb, great at that price!

I'm looking to upgrade now I have the d7000, but I'm not sure the 70-300 offers enough over the 55-200 to warrant that stop and not going straight to a pro level tele.
Click to expand...

The difficulty is that your options are somewhat limited or very expensive and the 70-300 VR takes you a long way into the Pro territory for very little cost in a small light lens. The 70-200mm f4.0 is fantastic but expensive and 200mm is notisibable shorter than 300mm. Sure you can use a 1.4TC and get 280mm f/5.6 but then you are no different to the 70-300,s Mae aperture and very similar optical performance. Then there is the 70-200mm f/2.8 but the cost difference is considerable and the 200mm issue means to get equivalency you are putting a TC on the lens to get near 300mm and by which point you are only 1 stop faster.

For dedicated wildlife I like the 300mm f/4.0. Pin sharp, Takes the 1.4xTC very well but is specialized for wildlife only.

I own the Nikon 300mm f/4.0, 70-300mm f/5.6 VR and 70-200mm f2.8 VR1.

The 70-200 is by far the least used lens. In fact I haven't touched it over 2…5 years and I should really sell it. The 300mm is used with a 1.4TC for all my wildlife needs where weight is not an issue, the 70-300 is used for longer hikes and also for landscape work.

The 70-200 2.8 is great for portraits, weddings, events and street work (a little obtrusive but gives great results). But I mostly shoot nature so it sits collecting dust. The 70-300 gives much the same images with more DoF in good light and is a perfect companion to my 16-85mm when I want to go light.
 
Some very good info there, but still dont know which to choose, im thinking about the cheaper option for the time being, only thing is if i upgrade then im going to have wasted money..

Meh, i dont know!
 
Hey D.P., quite right on the limited options. Although the 70-300 seems short of the pro lenses, without it that would only leave the 55-200 at the 'affordable' end. Of course spending more brings about other issues, namely in size and weight. I think I had the mindset regarding my own upgrade position if I came across somewhat dismissive of the 70-300.

The 70-300 is perhaps what I would buy if I didn't already have a tele lens, and price wasn't an issue. On the flip side, the 55-200 does everything much the same as the 18-55 lens you already have James, just with the longer reach. If you are happy with that lens, then it's cheap entry to a long zoom lens. If you were to purchase a 55-200 now, I doubt you'd lose much if you resold it later, particularly if you purchase used.
 
bcjames said:
I have a 55-200 alongside my 18-55. It's a good lens, the photos look good unless it's getting dark, then the aperture somewhat let's it down and it can sometimes struggle to af then. It's also really small so would sit nicely on the d40. They can be had for £85 from mpb, great at that price!

I'm looking to upgrade now I have the d7000, but I'm not sure the 70-300 offers enough over the 55-200 to warrant that stop and not going straight to a pro level tele.
Click to expand...

Why not get the 80-200? I recently replaced my 70-300 with one as I found myself not using the extra reach and was unable to use the lens in many situations due to it's small aperture.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
Why not get the 80-200? I recently replaced my 70-300 with one as I found myself not using the extra reach and was unable to use the lens in many situations due to it's small aperture.
Click to expand...

This is my thinking, for the same reasons, or a 70-200, but it's a big jump up in price for either.
 
Energize said:
Why not get the 80-200? I recently replaced my 70-300 with one as I found myself not using the extra reach and was unable to use the lens in many situations due to it's small aperture.
Click to expand...

are you referring to the AF-D lens? need to be careful there because he is using a D40x which doesnt have a internal motor to drive the focus

may worth thinking about the 55-300 and 18-300 as well. the 180300 will save you from changing lens out in the wild.
 
XE11 said:
are you referring to the AF-D lens? need to be careful there because he is using a D40x which doesnt have a internal motor to drive the focus

may worth thinking about the 55-300 and 18-300 as well. the 180300 will save you from changing lens out in the wild.
Click to expand...

The guy I was responding to has the D7000. :p
 
sid-180 said:
If you can try the sigma 70-200 os i picked one up new for £632
Click to expand...

Ah thats a little out of my budget, id push it to £250 but id like it new as my next camera will be a beauty, but for now im going to concentrate on looking after my lenses!

Thank you though :)
 
sid-180 said:
If you can try the sigma 70-200 os i picked one up new for £632
Click to expand...

Both the Sigma and the Nikon cost £615 new though, even the Tamron is £515. :p

James 07, I'd say your only real options are the 55-200 (£119), or the 70-300 (Sigma £258, Tamron £279, Nikon £313). Personally I would go with the 70-300 simply because it's a full frame lens, if you plan to go full frame in the future you don't want the hassle of having to sell and buy a load of lenses.
 
Last edited:
Okay, heres what ive found.

£75 Sigma Telephoto zoom lens - 70 mm - 300 mm - F/4.0-5.6 - Nikon F
£60 Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro For Nikon Digital & Film Cameras
£75 Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D DL Macro Lens - Nikon Fit
£95 Sigma DG 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 Lens For Nikon SLR

Any of these?

I need to know the differences :\
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom